Thailand to hold bilateral talks on border issues after Cambodia's ICJ warning
Phnom Penh: Cambodia and Thailand are scheduled to hold a Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) meeting on June 14 in Phnom Penh, centering on the border issues, as confirmed by the Cambodian foreign ministry on Wednesday.
The meeting comes at a time after soldiers of both countries briefly exchanged gunfire at the border area of Emerald Triangle on May 28, resulting in the death of a Cambodian soldier, according to media reports.
"Cambodia is committed to resolving border issues peacefully, through technical mechanisms and in accordance with international law," the Cambodian foreign ministry's spokesperson, Chum Sounry, said in a telegram message, adding that the meeting will focus on the area where a recent incident occurred.
Earlier on Sunday, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet said that he plans to take the border issues concerning the Emerald Triangle area, Ta Moan Thom Temple, Ta Moan Toch Temple, and Ta Krabey Temple to the UN's International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Meanwhile, the Thai government in an official statement on Wednesday announced that in response to its request, Cambodia has agreed to convene the upcoming JBC meeting.
"With regard to questions that Cambodia may wish to resort to a judicial mechanism or a third party on this matter, Thailand, as Cambodia's neighbour, is committed to resolving bilateral issues through peaceful means, based on international law, relevant treaties and agreements... Thailand is ready to engage in negotiations with Cambodia through existing bilateral mechanisms, like the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC), the General Border Committee (GBC), and the Regional Border Committee (RBC)," read the statement.
Regarding the exchange of gunfire at the border, which led to the death of a Cambodian soldier, the Thai government called the action an act of self-defence and a necessary measure to protect Thailand's sovereignty.
"The Royal Thai Government reaffirms its firm commitment to resolving this matter peacefully through negotiation in good faith with Cambodia, utilising existing bilateral mechanisms, in order to fully protect Thailand's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It remains confident that Thailand and Cambodia can resolve this issue based on good neighbourliness, the safety and well-being of people in border areas, and the same ASEAN family," the statement added.
The Thai Government called on Cambodia to work with Thailand in exercising maximum restraint, reducing tensions on the ground, and providing information to the public, with the aim of avoiding misunderstandings between the two countries.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
No, India Is Not Israel, And Pak Is Not Palestine
In the immediate aftermath of the April 2022 Pahalgam terror attack - where Indian civilians were targeted in a region long destabilised by cross-border militancy - an old but deeply flawed analogy began circulating with renewed vigour: that India is becoming Israel, with Pakistan being touted as the new 'Palestine'. This comparison, invoked by a range of commentators from populist influencers to academic quarters, attempts to overlay the Middle Eastern fault lines onto South Asia. However, while superficially tempting, this analogy is strategically misleading, historically untrue, and morally hazardous. At its core, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a struggle between a militarily dominant state and a stateless people living under occupation. It is defined by asymmetric power, a denial of sovereignty, and ongoing territorial annexation. India and Pakistan, by contrast, are both fully sovereign states that emerged from a negotiated partition of British India in 1947, each with their own internationally recognised borders and UN memberships. The bilateral conflict, especially over Kashmir, stems not from a denial of statehood but from unresolved territorial claims. Pakistan's continued insistence on linking Kashmir to Palestine flattens these distinctions and obfuscates the history of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism across Indian territory - from Punjab and Jammu & Kashmir to episodic destabilisation in India's Northeast. Equating Pakistani actions with Palestinian resistance also undermines the moral and strategic integrity of the Palestinian cause. It erases the fact that, unlike Palestinians under occupation, Pakistan has used its sovereign apparatus to sponsor and shelter groups involved in acts of terror. This deliberate state complicity - acknowledged even by global institutions - makes Pakistan an aggressor, not an aggrieved actor. Minorities, Democracy, and Statehood One of the more dangerous simplifications of the analogy lies in the misrepresentation of internal minority politics in both regions. It is true that India is facing criticism over recent communal tensions, polarised discourse, and policies perceived as marginalising Muslims. However, equating that with the condition of Palestinians under occupation ignores the difference between a flawed democracy and an apartheid state structure. In India, Muslims remain an electorally significant, constitutionally recognised group whose cultural, linguistic, and religious institutions are protected under law. Their political presence - though under strain - remains visible. From Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the country's first Education Minister, to Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, one of India's most beloved Presidents, the leadership and legacy of Indian Muslims is historically well-anchored. In contemporary times, figures like Asaduddin Owaisi, a staunch government critic, and Salman Khurshid, a senior Congress leader with no constitutional post, were both part of an all-party delegation sent abroad to brief international counterparts in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Their inclusion, despite being politically oppositional, signals a rare bipartisan consensus on matters of national security. Contrast this with Pakistan, where Ahmadiyyas are constitutionally barred from calling themselves Muslims, and Shias are frequently targeted in sectarian violence. The state's own structures are often complicit in marginalising non-Sunni groups, with blasphemy laws regularly weaponised against minorities. These are not merely social biases but systemic exclusions - legally and politically embedded. Meanwhile, in Palestine, the question is not one of minority rights within a sovereign state but of basic human existence under foreign occupation. Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza live without freedom of movement, due legal process, or political autonomy. Lumping these distinct contexts together does violence to the nuance required to address each problem on its own terms. Terrorism, Occupation, and Policy India's security doctrine has consistently emphasised that its conflict is not with the people of Pakistan but with its military-intelligence apparatus and its use of terrorism as statecraft. From the insurgency in Kashmir and the Khalistani separatist movement in Punjab to arms flowing into the Northeast in the 1980s and 1990s, India's internal challenges have often traced back to external sponsorship. These were not acts of a stateless community demanding dignity but the result of a neighbour using irregular war to destabilise a regional adversary. Israel, by contrast, has often responded to Palestinian armed resistance with disproportionate force - demolishing homes, bombing refugee camps, and applying collective punishment policies. These actions have generated global concern about human rights violations, and rightly so. However, attempts to map these punitive actions onto India's counter-terror operations obscure the scale, nature, and intent of both countries' military strategies. What makes the analogy particularly hollow is India's long-standing commitment to the Palestinian cause. Even under the Modi government, which has expanded strategic ties with Israel, India has repeatedly reaffirmed its support for a two-state solution and spoken against occupation at UN fora. Far from mimicking Israeli policy, India has walked a diplomatic tightrope - deepening bilateral defence relations with Israel while maintaining principled solidarity with Palestine. Conflating these divergent positions is not only analytically lazy but diplomatically counterproductive. It risks damaging India's credibility in the Global South, especially at a time when New Delhi seeks to position itself as a mediator and developmental partner in multilateral spaces. More importantly, it insults the Palestinian struggle by associating it with Pakistan's agenda of using terrorism and religious nationalism as tools of foreign policy. Reject Lazy Analogies Both the Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan conflicts demand global attention. But attention should not mean abstraction. The occupation of Palestine is a human rights crisis rooted in land, displacement, and statelessness. The India-Pakistan dynamic, while also involving land and identity, is situated in a very different matrix: of two sovereign nations, one of which has routinely used terrorism to internationalise what is essentially a bilateral issue. Sympathy for the Palestinian cause should not be hijacked to justify flawed analogies that exonerate state complicity in South Asia. Nor should India's legitimate counterterrorism operations be lumped with settler-colonial violence. Doing so only weakens both struggles - reducing history, diplomacy, and suffering to hashtags. In times of polarisation, strategic clarity is not just a virtue, it is a necessity. India is not Israel. Pakistan is not Palestine. And equating them does justice to neither the complexity of history nor the urgency of peace. (Ashraf Nehal is an author, analyst and columnist, who writes on South Asian geopolitics, climate action and world affairs. He was a former PM Young Writing Fellow)
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
The return of a mask stolen by Belgium is stoking violence in Congo
Whenever a Belgian king takes an interest in the Congo, history looms large. In the late 19th century King Leopold II turned the territory into a giant slave plantation, murdering, raping and slicing off limbs in a ruthless bid to profit from its resources. So when Philippe, Belgium's current king, visited the Democratic Republic of Congo in June 2022, he did so in the spirit of atonement. He wanted to open a 'new chapter" in the two countries' relations, he said, and handed over a precious wooden carving known as the Kakungu mask, one of thousands of cultural artefacts looted from Congo that Belgium has promised to give back. Alas, violence seems to have followed Philippe into the Congo like Leopold's ghost. In the same month that he visited, ethnic conflict broke out in Kwamouth, a district just north of Kinshasa, the capital. It pitted the local Teke people against their neighbours, the Yaka and the Suku. The Kakungu mask is venerated by both the Suku and Yaka as an ancestral symbol of war. They believe it confers magical powers on their fighters, making them invulnerable to bullets and giving them the ability to disappear. These attributes had helped their ancestors resist colonisation. According to the UN Group of Experts on the Congo, the return of the Kakungu mask has emboldened Suku and Yaka militias, who call themselves 'Mobondo", to carry out vicious attacks on Teke communities. At least 300 people have been killed and some 160,000 have been forced to flee. The true death toll is probably far higher, though no one knows for sure because the Congolese army has sealed off the worst-affected areas. Humanitarian groups cite unconfirmed figures of more than 3,000 deaths. 'Wait a few years and we'll start finding mass graves," says a journalist based in Kinshasa. Although the return of the Kakungu mask may well have inflamed the violence, the conflict has deeper roots. It began with a disagreement over land rights. The Yaka and Suku had for years paid taxes to Teke customary chiefs in return for permission to farm the land. An attempt by those chiefs to increase the customary tax in early 2022 was the trigger for the initial clashes, which have spiralled into something verging on ethnic cleansing. The Mobondo appear to be trying to drive out the Teke from Kwamouth and nearby areas. The Congolese government has made things worse. It appointed a 'pacification commission" to defuse the conflict in September 2022, led by a member of the Suku royal family, Fabrice Kavabioko, who is also known as King Mini-Kongo. But, according to a UN report, Mr Kavabioko is one of the figureheads of the Mobondo and 'was accused of having been an instigator of the conflict". Many Teke thus felt that the government had sided with their rivals. Mr Kavabioko has reportedly said he was 'entrusted with the restoring peace" and that he had done so. Nearly 300 suspected Mobondo fighters have since been detained, according to Human Rights Watch, an international monitor. Yet over 1,000 more faced no punishment at all. Instead, under a deal apparently brokered by Mr Kavabioko, some were drafted into the Congolese army and sent to fight against M23, a Rwanda-backed rebel group active in the country's far east. 'The lack of accountability for alleged perpetrators deepens mistrust among communities," says Thomas Fessy, a Congo researcher at Human Rights Watch. Congo's army may have also been heavy-handed with Yaka and Suku communities suspected of harbouring Mobondo militants. Five soldiers have been convicted of rape or extrajudicial killings. Some reckon the government is blocking journalists and aid workers from entering Kwamouth for fear they will unearth evidence of further abuses by the armed forces. The Mobondo, meanwhile, continue to attack soldiers and civilians alike. Sign up to the Analysing Africa, a weekly newsletter that keeps you in the loop about the world's youngest—and least understood—continent.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
'Hamas must leave Gaza, Oct 7 attack on Israel reprehensible': Palestinian Authority Prez Abbas
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has demanded Hamas disarm, release hostages, and cede control of Gaza, in a letter to French President Emmanuel Macron and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Ahead of a pivotal UN summit on Palestinian statehood, Abbas pledged elections within a year and welcomed a UN-mandated peacekeeping force. France, weighing recognition of Palestine, praised his commitments as 'unprecedented.' Israel opposes the move, amid rising Macron-Netanyahu tensions. The push revives two-state hopes as Gaza reels from war. #Palestine #MahmoudAbbas #Hamas #Gaza #UNSummit #TwoStateSolution #EmmanuelMacron #Israel #MiddleEastPeace #PalestinianState #EUEfforts #HostageRelease #UNRecognition Show more Show less
